I think the question being posed here exposes the issue with creating a mythical matchup between someone in their prime (Frazier) vs someone based on just a fight or two (Golota). Essentially you have too small of a sample size of Golota to evaluate against Frazier. Are we to assume that the Golota who fought against Bowe in the second fight is THAT much different than the one who fought against Lewis less than a year later? If so, why? What changed in those months? Because I doubt anyone is saying that Golota is putting up much against Frazier.
Additionally, I think the comparison of Golota's size to Foreman's size and thus equating Golota to Foreman is a mistake. Yes, Golotas size would be an advantage, but I dont see it being that much of a difference. Especially when you consider what Golota showed to be in the months surrounding the Bowe fight.
Additionally, I think the comparison of Golota's size to Foreman's size and thus equating Golota to Foreman is a mistake. Yes, Golotas size would be an advantage, but I dont see it being that much of a difference. Especially when you consider what Golota showed to be in the months surrounding the Bowe fight.
Comment